Palin & McCain - Part 3

In the last post we looked at the first argument some evangelicals will use to uphold their support of McPalin: namely, that there are no standards in the Bible which apply to civil magistrates. Such an argument is, as was pointed out, faulty and unbiblical in the light of scripture. Much thanks to Dr. Einwechter for his very helpful article on this subject. There is a link to this article on my previous post about Palin (see Palin & McCain - Part 2).

In this post, we will look at the second of the three major arguments some evangelicals may use. Here it is: Egalitarianism is fine outside of church and home. In other words, as Einwechter puts it, "...the doctrine of male headship and the existence of distinct and separate roles for men and women only apply in the home and church. In the sphere of politics and civil government, the complementarians argue...that the doctrine of male headship is not relevent here, and all public roles and positions are equally open to men and women. Mohler writes: 'The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the church and in the home, but not in roles of public responsibility.' Kotter states: 'The Bible calls women to specific roles in the church and home, but does not prohibit them from excercising leadership in secular political fields.' This means, to them, that it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to be a judge, legislator, governor, vice president, or president of the United States."

Now lets look at this closely. First, we already said there are biblical standards for civil magistrates, and that in every one of these, men are the ones in view, not women. Second, Mohler says that "The New Testament speaks clearly..."etc. Whatever happened to the Old Testament? Jesus himself quoted from the Old Testament many times in the course of his ministry, and so did several of the Apostles in their epistles; Jesus also said, in Matt. 5:17-19, "Do not think that I came to destroy (or make void) the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whowever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Why should we dismiss the Old Testament when 2 Tim. 2 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Paul, in this letter, does not say "some Scripture" or "part of Scripture", he says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God...". Paul also says "thoroughly equipped for every good work" which means that in all areas of life the Word of God provides direction.

Dr. Einwechter says, "The record of some of our finest and most influential Reformation Bible commentaters stand in opposition to Mohler, Kotter, and others who argue for a semi-complementarian, semi-egalitarian position on the jurisdictional roles of men and women. These men not only believed that all of the Bible informed our view of ethics, but that there was harmony between the Old and New Testaments on the issue of the role of women and the jurisdctional governments established by God." One of these, fine men was John Knox, the famous Scottish reformer. Dr. Einwechter says, "... John Knox put it this way: 'To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely [an insult] against God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally, it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.'

"Niether human reason or human experience can define the assigned roles of men and women, nor determine the relationship they sustain to each other in terms of authority and submission; only the Creator's Word can do that.

"The Bible is clear that man's headship over the woman is an essential and all-encompassing part of God's plan and part of His established order of government in the world. This fact is made explicit in 1 Cor. 11:13: 'But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man;; and the head of Christ is God.' By its very nature, this order must apply in all areas of life; it is an essential order that knows no exceptions. Complementarians would agree that in every area of divine government God is the head of Christ, and in ebvery area of life the head of man is Christ. But, incredibly, they argue that the order of male headship has only limited application, and that there are many areas of life where it does not apply, and one of them is the civil sphere. They justify this interpretation by stating that 1 Cor. 11:13 is in the context of church order. This is true, but the place in which this text appears and the sweeping statements in the text itself show that Paul is establishing the theology that the world is governed according to the divinely given order, an order that he will presently apply to church order. The fact that Paul is not giving a principle that only applies to church order is evident from what he says about Christ and God, and Christ and men."

Of course there are exceptions to this divinely assigned role order. Perhaps the husband has been injured and is laid up in bed. Obviously it would be wrong for the wife not to take charge of affairs while her spouse is unable to do so. You might even go into extremes: let's say the husband died, and the wife is now a widow with young children who must support her family. Again it would not be sin for the woman in this case to work to put food on the table and clothes on her children's backs, although Scripture is clear that the church should be taking care of its widows. However, such exceptions do not replace the God-given rule of male headship. Such exceptions do not nullify or make void the rule; the exception proves it. One cannot throw out the rule and put in its place the exception. It is one thing for a woman to work several hours a week at Wal-Mart if she is a widow or her husband is unable to work; but it is quite another thing for her to undertake the vice-presidency of a nation, which God has clearly told us is the duty of a man, and not that of the opposite sex.

Persevero,

Scribe